Aside from the infuriating infantilizing of women, this "cooling off" idea bites for other reasons. Pregnancy--even a week of it--can be emotionally wrought, but it can also be physical torture. Have any of these people ever been pregnant? Have they had hyperemiesis (24/7 severe "morning" sickness)? Pre-eclampsia? Months-long bedrest? Fatigue that rivals a narcopleptic? Gestational diabetes? Childbirth? For all these folks think about the fetus--its rights, its silent scream, its need for anaethesia-- they act as if the difficulty of pregnancy and birth for women is akin to chapped lips or a hangnail. If they consider the woman at all.

It's completely stupid. If a woman is likely to get an abortion in the first week of discovering she's pregnant, she's damn sure that's what she wants and isn't going to change her mind. I know from personal experience, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy there was no doubt in my mind that I wanted an abortion.

Is it a week, or 10 days? Seems to two times in the writeup. I disagree with the week-long wait, reducing the 24 weeks to 20 weeks is an issue I don't intend to touch with a ten-foot barge pole.

To: Pram in the Hall. Personally, I'm pro-choice.

However, if someone believes that a fetus is alive, and has a right to live, I don't think someone else suffering anything less than a serious chance of death or injury themselves justifies abortion.

My bad, the 10 day thing was in the original bill pushed, it was reduced to a week...changed the post to reflect that.

These are the types of things I point out to people who deny that women are still being oppressed. To realize one is pregnant, debate the options (or not), make an appointment, and then be told one has to wait a week. It's insulting.

It's the same thing with tubal ligations. I can't find any hard documentation on whether this is law or personal physician policy, although I've looked, but at a former job, there was a woman who had had two abortions, given up a child for adoption and was pregnant again and told that until she was 25 or had five children, she could not have a tubal ligation procedure.

Because obviously, women are considered children, beyond knowing their own minds, incapable of making their own decisions, and utterly at the mercy of men who impose these restrictions.

pram in the hall -

I had hyperemesis when I was pregnant. I only got Zofran after about 4 days. Four days of not eating anything, or drinking anything, and hardly any sleep. I ended up smoking lots of pot to kill the nausea and get some sleep, but I ran out and couldn't get more so I had to get enough zofran until the date of my abortion. That was the most miserable I'd been in my life, and now anytime I feel nauseous, even just a little, I have a small panic attack.

jrav: This is going to sound offensive, but I don't think a women who managed to have 4 unwanted pregnancies should be used as an example of how women shouldn't be treated as stupid. Has she never been taught about condoms?

Darn, I posted that when I meant to start a new paragraph.

I was going to say that a male friend of mine was told he can't get his testicles tied until he was 24 (OK, one year difference, but could vary between doctors I imagine), so while I agree people should be in control of thier own bodies, this isn't a women-specific thing.

No offense taken. I agree it's incredibly stupid, but at the same time, she obviously knew how idiotic it was and tried to stop the madness with a tubal ligations - but wasn't allowed one.

But you're right. I could have found a better example.

From a different angle - if there really are women out there who would take abortion lightly enough to get one without thinking it through, is that the type of woman we really want to encourage to be mothers?

I don't really think most people need encouragement to be mothers.

And, if you place restrictions on whether or not they have thought "enough" about it, you might as well hang it up and say, well, no abortions.

Don't abortions get riskier for the woman's health the longer you wait? Seems to me this bill is seriously shortening the window in which a woman can get an abortion, from both ends, and also increasing the likelihood that something will go wrong. Yuck.

"From a different angle - if there really are women out there who would take abortion lightly enough to get one without thinking it through, is that the type of woman we really want to encourage to be mothers?"

Thank you, sawall. This is slightly off the topic of this particular post, but this is the same issue I have with the restrictions on teenagers getting abortions. If the teen can prove she is "mature enough" in front of a judge, then she can get an abortion. So if she's not mature enough to decide she wants an abortion, the result is that she has to become a parent. This seems totally illogical to me. If the teen is deemed not mature for whatever reason, then why would we want to force her to deal with the adult responsibility of raising a child for the next 18+ years?

Here's the thing. Either you thought about possible consequences when you started having sex, and decided that if you ended up pregnant, you'd get the abortion; or you're going to start thinking about it REAL FAST when the test turns out positive. Why the hell is it assumed that you'd only want an abortion if you hadn't thought about it? It seems to me like, in many cases (obviously can't speak for everyone's mindset) the longer you contemplate the social, finacial, professional, and emotinal reasons you'd find to NOT have an unplanned child. (Like I said, that would be my mindset, not necessarily others', and could change based on things like age and financial situation. But then again, if it's so variable and individual, why do people assume that women will decide NOT to have an abortion after thinking?)

The "cooling-off period" idea really just reinforces the fact that there are still some out there who view women as unstable, emotional wrecks who can't be trusted to make a descision as serious as an abortion. If I was in need of abortion, and had to wait an addtional period of time to get one, I would be more likely to want the abortion even more than to decide not to get one (which it seems like the opposite is what whoever made this policy believes would happen).

Azumanga said "jrav: This is going to sound offensive, but I don't think a women who managed to have 4 unwanted pregnancies should be used as an example of how women shouldn't be treated as stupid. Has she never been taught about condoms?"

Why not? Perfect example. My parents had seven pregancies and six children while using every form of birth control they could get their hands on. Some people are just exceptionally fertile. Let's not judge hastily.

I'm curious to know the reasons the UK wants a more restrictive abortion policy. Are the fundies becoming more influential over there? Is there some problem with the policy as it is, that they think restrictions will help?

~asha

There is a lot of opposition to this in parliament. Fantastic MP extraordinaire Chris McCafferty (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/chris_mccafferty/calder_valley) gave a really really great, interesting speech which basically outlines every single way that this idea sucks.

Read her speech here- http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-10-31a.155.0&s=abortion+speaker%3A10378#g157.2

I cheered from my computer when she said "to hon. Members: "By all means vote for the Bill if you really believe that a woman should be required to continue a late-diagnosed pregnancy, even if her health is at risk or the foetus is abnormal. Vote for the Bill if you do not believe that such difficult decisions should, wherever possible, be made within families." But I also say to hon. Members: "Vote against the Bill if you are pro-life, if you are pro-quality of life, if you are pro a woman's life. Vote against the Bill if you are pro-women's rights, because women's rights are human rights. Vote against the Bill if you are pro-reproductive rights, because reproductive rights are also human rights. Vote against the Bill if you are pro-humanity, because it is cynical, cruel, ill-informed and, above all, inhumane"

Apologies to all, I didn't read the whole original post properly. Still, it's all interesting.